ahm... my issue is solved... I was using an out-of-date version of the client side RnageValidator, which requiring min/max.
-M On 5/16/07, Blake Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How exactly is having the Double.MIN/MAX available on the client going to help us? Isn't the result of an overflow a valid Double? -- Blake Sullivan Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > ok, > > we can use undefined instead of null. > > So we can use the undefined to indicate that Number.MAX / -Number.MAX > are desired, right ? > > null should be the case, when there is really no MIN/MAX for the > RangeValidator. > > -Matthias > > > On 5/16/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> No, I think the client-side should get either null or undefined >> in this case. You always want to minimize the instances >> of floating point equality comparisons; code like: >> foo == 4.9e-324 >> is error-prone. >> >> -- Adam >> >> >> On 5/16/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > for some reasons, the Long/Double RangeValidtor "renders" for the >> > MIN_VALUE / MAX_VALUE null. >> > >> > I'd like to change that. >> > So for instance: >> > Double.MIN_VALUE would "render" as 4.9e-324 >> > >> > A check in JAVASCRIPT told me, that 4.9e-324 == Number.MIN_VALUE >> > >> > Do you agree ? >> > >> > -Matthias >> > >> > -- >> > Matthias Wessendorf >> > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh >> > >> > further stuff: >> > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf >> > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com >> > >> > >
-- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
